On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Izumi Tsutsui <tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp> wrote: > > >>> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)? > >>> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node? > >> > >> hw.machine_arch > >> > >> which has been defined for a long long time. > > > > Yes, defined before sf vs hf issue arised, and > > you have changed the definition (i.e. make it dynamic) > > without public discussion. That's the problem. > > It was already dynamic (it changes for compat_netbsd32).
Whether or when it's dynamic or not, it would be great if you could fix it so that binary packages can be used. And Tsutsui-san is right - public discussion needs to take place, and consumers made aware, before these kind of changes are made. Thanks, Alistair